It’s not really that AVIF is “underrated”—it’s more that adoption lags behind its technical strengths: while it often beats JPEG and WebP in compression efficiency, it comes with tradeoffs like much slower encoding times (especially at high quality), higher CPU cost for decoding on some devices, and historically patchy support across browsers, operating systems, and editing tools; on top of that, most existing pipelines, CMSs, and CDNs were built around older formats, so switching requires effort with limited perceived payoff for average users, and even though backing from groups like the Alliance for Open Media helps, network effects keep JPEG and WebP dominant because they’re “good enough,” universally supported, and deeply embedded in workflows, so AVIF ends up growing steadily but quietly rather than exploding overnight.

File: AVIF_BASELINE.png (56.7 KB)

56.7 KB PNG

>>108645883
It's not going anywhere without AV1 hardware acceleration (because AVIF images are just static AV1 videos, essentially) which does exist on phones but finding them on budget ones (ie the ones that would help spread support) is kinda dogshit right now. I made the incorrect assumption that a modern Android phone being released with Android 15 (not upgraded to it) would mean automatic AV1 hardware support but these nigger kike faggot OEMs are re-using older chipsets without AV1 hardware decoding and shipping them with Android 15. It's very infuriating that support for a thing that cost $0 in royalty fees isn't on fucking everything right now.

Also, understandably, AV1 hardware limitations tend to cause a lot of butthurt mainly because people don't understand them. For example 4:2:0 is balls at first glance but AOM comes with a --sharpyuv option that mitigates the problems of reduced chroma resolution. 4K resolution (per tile) is harder to defend especially since AFAIK, there's no auto-tiling thing in the AOM encoder yet, which means if you don't know how to divide your 100MP image into 8MP chunks then AVIF is effectively stuck at 4K res max for you.

So basically AVIF isn't going to replace JPG/Webp anytime soon despite it's huge technical improvements (ie 10-bit, better chroma upscaling, layers, etc etc) because OEMs are kikes I guess.

pixdaiz? more like kysdaiz

the EU should simply mandate an image format

File: 1766032634412.webm (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB WEBM

>>108646129
From a purely technical perspective, for the most part, there is no longer any reason to see AVIF as inferior to JXL when you factor in the recent IQ tune being adopted as a default setting in libavif. On average JXL no longer offers the 10-20% compression efficiency advantage it once did in photographic images over AVIF. In fact sometimes AVIF can achieve even greater compression efficiency than JXL, again in photographic images.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AV1/comments/1rl8vmu/libavif_140_with_tune_iq_as_a_default_for_images/

>80 = very high quality. Distortion not noticeable by an average observer in a side-by-side comparison at 1:1 from a normal viewing distance. This corresponds to the typical output of cjxl -d 1.5 / -q 85 or libjpeg-turbo 4:2:2 quality 85.

https://github.com/cloudinary/ssimulacra2

File size: 254 KB (~29% smaller than JPG)
https://files.catbox.moe/ptvr88.avif
--sharpyuv -s 6 -q 72 -d 10 -y 420 --cicp 1/13/1 -a tune=iq

File size: 284 KB (~20% smaller than JPG)
https://files.catbox.moe/isrw29.jxl
-q 91 -e 7 --override_bitdepth=10

File: 1766596627807336.png (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB PNG

>>108646136
Unwise unless they also mandated AVIF hardware decoding. Performance/battery issues are terrible optics for AVIF, it would just make more people want to stick with JPG/Webp even more. There should be laws banning OEMs from re-using 10-year old chipsets, nobody except the OEM benefits from this fucking e-waste kike shit.

>>108646221
>On average
where dataset

>>108645883
Normalfags don't give a shit about efficiency or storage optimization.
Anyone with a large image collection is going to prefer quality over saving storage space.
There's no market for this shit.
>but streaming!
Bandwidth has nothing to do with a discussion about storage space savings.

File: jpeg.jpg (69.8 KB)

69.8 KB JPG

I know what a jpeg is and it works on all my shit
webp is a pain in the ass that exists only to save web hosts a few cents per minute
never heard of avif so I assume it's even more annoying

File: 이미지303.png (241.6 KB)

241.6 KB PNG

>>108645883
Because even if a new format is objectively better it's a pain in the ass to gain traction in the real world.
It might be pushed by a specific corporation, and conversely blocked by another like Google fucked over Jpeg XL support in Chrome.
There are always other competing standards, if the programs you use don't support a new standard it's practically useless to you, if it's not free it's a pain in the ass to implement in FOSS and so on.

File: Screenshot (110).png (133.2 KB)

133.2 KB PNG

>>108647641
https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/image-comparison/
>March 16, 2023

Basically before libavif 1.4.0 was released on March 4, 2026, default AOM parameters would smooth out detail in photographic images particularly camera image sensor noise at high SS2 values (70-90) so for a while JXL got to strut around acting like the king of image codecs even though the delta was arguably minor and not even present in SS2 values that websites tend to target. Anyway AVIF has now succeeded in becoming a kind of swiss army knife of an image codec for both home users/websites and lack of widespread hardware acceleration is the only thing holding it back from murdering JXL right now.

>>108645883
its too slow to encode, this crap wont go anywhere as it stands now.

>>108645883
>AVIF VITTUUN LAUDALTA

png or death

>>108647693
>Anyone with a large image collection is going to prefer quality over saving storage space.
I challenge this. Normies have photos from their phone that they only look at on their phone and memes, as far as digital image goes. Quality is not highly valued in either case.

File: big-oof-size.gif (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB GIF

>>108648397
>Instantly verified
Everything you did was a lesson in futility

>>108645883
Only reason to use webp is for lossless, where webp shines and avif truly sucks

For lossy nothing beats jpeg xl, avif is a format with literally no reason for existing

https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/libavif/commit/b357f083ea5ae0ee7b09a65a48621f345e710588

AVIF is getting upgraded to AV2 compresssion technology, it will beat obsolete JPEG even more in size efficiency

>>108649042
>>108649086
wtf are you luddites talking about? AVIF can already reduce existing JPG sizes by 75% according to this thread

>>108648747
>>108648747
>>108648747
>>108648747

File: 1750557281509513.png (250.9 KB)

250.9 KB PNG

>>108647996
It would replace GIF and JPG for most users. Unlike the small upgrade seen by webp it offers things like 10-bit/HDR which matter for modern displays.

So basically a quality 100 JPG/Webp would literally look like dogshit compared to a quality 60-70 10-bit AVIF with HDR. You know because JPG/Webp LITERALLY lack 10-bit/HDR...

>>108649042
the real appeal of jxl is not even lossy/lossless, its being a full format with backwards compatibility with jpg. avif cant compete with that.

>>108649102
Jpeg-XL can reduce more without any visual quality loss, also it can do pure lossless recompression of existing jpeg files with ~22% further compression

Avif is a joke, everyone knows it's a joke, which is why there's zero uptake after all this time

Go away retard

>>108649158
neat, I use a 1440p ips monitor from 10 years ago and have no need for any of those missing features. Meanwhile the "upgraded" formats give me the distinct benefit of not fucking working in my legal copy of Photoshop CS6 that costs nothing monthly to use

File: 1775479514368764.png (210.4 KB)

210.4 KB PNG

>>108649185
I can't tell the difference between the JPG and the AVIF image that's 75% smaller in that thread.

75% is bigger than 22%...

File: 1773767868291967.webm (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB WEBM

>>108645883
It's like 90% smaller for Anime images too which surpasses JXL. The whole thing drives JXL shills fucking nuts when you mention it. They'll then pretend tree bark is 100X more important than Anime on an Anime website...

>>108649256
>75% is bigger than 22%...
Those 75% is not lossless you retard, 22% is lossless and can reproduce the exact bitwise original jpeg

File: 1771016308756894.png (330.4 KB)

330.4 KB PNG

>>108649387
I don't see the difference though. Not sure at what you're getting at here.

>>108649411
Jpeg XL does way better with visually lossless than Avif does, meanwhile Jpeg XL can also losslessly compress jpeg with 22% more compression

It's a superior format all around, Avif offers nothing

>>108649419
Alright so let me get this straight:

A) Reducing 22% JPG file size is good.

B) Reducing 75% JPG file size is bad.

You think 22% is bigger than 75%?

tell avif lost my man. your format is crap and slow.

>>108649485
Stop pretending that you don't know the 22% refers to lossless and 75% refers to lossy

You've already lost, and Avif is already dead, so why are you being autistic about it ?

>>108645883
>>108649042
I only care about lossless and sometimes AVIF is smaller than WebP and sometimes it’s larger

>>108649552
i was wondering if tel avif could be a good replacement for gif? since its video based and produce small formats, but ive found out its too slow to encode, even crap dvd fotage.

File: 1764419352520900.jpg (43.9 KB)

43.9 KB JPG

>>108649562
What do you mean when you autists say "lossless"? Like is it:

A) On a side to side comparison I can't tell these images apart.
or
B) If you place a magnifying glass on your computer screen you can see that pixel column 1838, row 2849, sector F, quadrant C, is a 10% different hue of blue. Into the trash it goes.

Because to me at least, the 75% smaller AVIF file in >>108648781 looks exactly the same as the JPG.

>>108649637
Lossless mean zero loss, as in identical.

There is the term 'visually lossless' which is when it's extremely hard if not impossible for a human to see the difference between it and a lossless image unless you REALLY inspect it side by side.

File: 1765314643859680.jpg (37.4 KB)

37.4 KB JPG

>>108649727
Man, I think we need new terms for this shit, too confusing.

>>108645883
>Hiram Avif

this thread is 100% OP samefagging.

>>108648653
i dont know what this means

>>108645883
It's just a still frame of a video, not a real image

File: 1771672846661405.jpg (94.6 KB)

94.6 KB JPG

>>108651300
By that logic so is a JPG because MJPEG exists.

>Motion JPEG (M-JPEG or MJPEG) is a video compression format in which each video frame or interlaced field of a digital video sequence is compressed separately as a JPEG image.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_JPEG

>>108645883
Do you rely on ratings when selecting an image codec?

>>108650002
Because it is.

It's Daiz who is behind every Tel Avif and WebPiss shill post.

And he uses bots to automate it all.

https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108545582/#108563559

>>108652591
Isn't that the jpeg xl shill tranny?

i have not yet installed libheif or libheic library as i suspect systemupdate

File: yodawg.jpg (46.9 KB)

46.9 KB JPG

Yo dawg, javascript bloat got so big we feel we needed to do something so we made lossy compression of your jpegs even lossier so you can lose picture quality while you lose picture quality

>>108648034
>>108649158
doroooooo

>>108649158

but 10-bit avif is not HDR if sRGB or Rec.709

>>108654421
That's up to the CICP I guess. I think HDR stuff auto-transfer in libavif by now.

>>108645883
jpegXL is better anyway

>>108645883
Why is it about making everything on the web smaller? People have never had more computer power than now, or faster internet. If we look at gaming, all games become bigger.

Why do you care? You don't pay 4chan's server bills.

>>108654546
Is it really? See >>108646221

>>108654617
Websites have to pay money to have things online. You sound like a neet that has mommy and daddy pay the bills.